Well said. If I read the BFM2000 correctly, the only role restricted to men only in an SBC church is that of "senior pastor." I can see a woman being nominated, though I don't see one being elected anytime soon.

Sandy wrote:Well said. If I read the BFM2000 correctly, the only role restricted to men only in an SBC church is that of "senior pastor." I can see a woman being nominated, though I don't see one being elected anytime soon.

It seems unlikely that a denomination that doesn't want women in lead pastoral roles would make a woman the head of the denomination. If I were a betting man I'd bet no woman president of the SBC in my lifetime.

Sandy wrote:Well said. If I read the BFM2000 correctly, the only role restricted to men only in an SBC church is that of "senior pastor." I can see a woman being nominated, though I don't see one being elected anytime soon.

It seems unlikely that a denomination that doesn't want women in lead pastoral roles would make a woman the head of the denomination. If I were a betting man I'd bet no woman president of the SBC in my lifetime.

Yep friend, I'm turning into an old man quickly. I could be wrong. But if I didn't believe a woman can pastor a church I don't know why I'd believe they could/should lead a church denomination. Baptists can and do surprised me sometimes. So, we will see.

Dave Roberts wrote:Prior to 1979, there were a couple of women who held one of the vice-president spots in the SBC. One was Myra Bates, and I do not remember the other.

According to the linked article:

The first woman to be elected an SBC officer was Mrs. R.L. Mathis, a former WMU president who was elected second vice president in 1963 and became the first woman to preside during an SBC annual meeting in 1964, Deweese said in a 1977 address to the Florida Baptist Historical Society.

Mathis was nominated for SBC president in 1972, Deweese said, and Mrs. Carl Bates was elected second vice president in 1976.

93. President White called on Second Vice-President Mrs. R. L. Mathis (Ala.) to preside during the evening session and called attention to the significant fact that this was the first time a woman had presided over a session of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Yep friend, I'm turning into an old man quickly. I could be wrong. But if I didn't believe a woman can pastor a church I don't know why I'd believe they could/should lead a church denomination. Baptists can and do surprised me sometimes. So, we will see.

I would expect that someone might nominate a woman, and it might be that a woman might get elected as FVP or SVP, but I don't think the atmosphere is such that any specific convention would elect a woman.

Of course, being president of the SBC really doesn't involve leading the denomination. The position has some high level of visibility in the Baptist press around convention time, or if there is some kind of controversy, but other than appointing the committee on committees, wields no authority other than to control the gavel at the annual meeting, which is highly regulated by the parliamentarian. It seems from the blog discussions that the primary objection to a woman holding the office is that the president gets the privilege of preaching one of the sermons at the convention. I don't see a problem with that, either, since there is really no Biblical injunction that forbids a woman to preach, a sermon in a Baptist setting is not an authoritarian act, and there are Bible passages that can be interpreted in context which show that women can proclaim the word of God publicly. But that seems to be one of the major hitches.

Sandy wrote:Of course, being president of the SBC really doesn't involve leading the denomination. The position has some high level of visibility in the Baptist press around convention time, or if there is some kind of controversy, but other than appointing the committee on committees, wields no authority other than to control the gavel at the annual meeting, which is highly regulated by the parliamentarian.

I think Judge Pressler and Dr. Patterson would chuckle at your evaluation of the SBC President not being that involved in leading the denomination as the election of the “right” SBC President year after year was a key to the SBC Takeover. If anything, I always thought the position was too powerful. Methodists have Bishops and we don’t give any of them that kind of individual power over a committee that nominates national leadership.

Sandy wrote:Of course, being president of the SBC really doesn't involve leading the denomination. The position has some high level of visibility in the Baptist press around convention time, or if there is some kind of controversy, but other than appointing the committee on committees, wields no authority other than to control the gavel at the annual meeting, which is highly regulated by the parliamentarian.

I think Judge Pressler and Dr. Patterson would chuckle at your evaluation of the SBC President not being that involved in leading the denomination as the election of the “right” SBC President year after year was a key to the SBC Takeover. If anything, I always thought the position was too powerful. Methodists have Bishops and we don’t give any of them that kind of individual power over a committee that nominates national leadership.

That is definitely a high level of power, naming the committee, but there is nothing about that specific responsibility that an inerrantist could point to and say that a woman is disqualified from serving in that capacity. The power is within the structure of a denomination, and denominations are not churches, nor sanctioned or created in scripture. It is not a church office, and does not wield any power or authority that could be said to be ecclesiastical or spiritual of a woman being over a man.

Sandy wrote:That is definitely a high level of power, naming the committee, but there is nothing about that specific responsibility that an inerrantist could point to and say that a woman is disqualified from serving in that capacity. The power is within the structure of a denomination, and denominations are not churches, nor sanctioned or created in scripture. It is not a church office, and does not wield any power or authority that could be said to be ecclesiastical or spiritual of a woman being over a man.

Yet, in the SBC constitution or not, the President of the SBC has a heck of a lot more power than the average pastor of the average church. And their influence would certainly effect the lives of male and female Southern Baptists.

Sandy wrote:That is definitely a high level of power, naming the committee, but there is nothing about that specific responsibility that an inerrantist could point to and say that a woman is disqualified from serving in that capacity. The power is within the structure of a denomination, and denominations are not churches, nor sanctioned or created in scripture. It is not a church office, and does not wield any power or authority that could be said to be ecclesiastical or spiritual of a woman being over a man.

Yet, in the SBC constitution or not, the President of the SBC has a heck of a lot more power than the average pastor of the average church. And their influence would certainly effect the lives of male and female Southern Baptists.

It’s a odd bit of polity.

But it's mere human polity, whereas the senior pastor bit is (held to be by many) Divine in its origin and authority.

Sandy wrote:That is definitely a high level of power, naming the committee, but there is nothing about that specific responsibility that an inerrantist could point to and say that a woman is disqualified from serving in that capacity. The power is within the structure of a denomination, and denominations are not churches, nor sanctioned or created in scripture. It is not a church office, and does not wield any power or authority that could be said to be ecclesiastical or spiritual of a woman being over a man.

Yet, in the SBC constitution or not, the President of the SBC has a heck of a lot more power than the average pastor of the average church. And their influence would certainly effect the lives of male and female Southern Baptists.

It’s a odd bit of polity.

It is odd. It is also interesting that it is part of the structure of denominational leadership that was created by the moderates when they had control of the convention, in order to place appointive power in the hands of someone within an influential group who would ensure that others in the same group got all of the positions. I don't think they ever thought that another group could get control of it, and hold on to it for decades.

If a renegade group of messengers at some subsequent convention succeeded in electing a woman as SBC president, there'd be a walkout, and a nice split in the denomination, a serious one.

All of this is made weird by the strange interpretation (no local church women pastors!) that the SBC (and others) have made from the set of verses they have chosen to “proof text” this practice/dogma. Those verses include:

1 Corinthians 14:33-36 New International Version (NIV)

33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Natural interpretation is women should not be allowed to make any noise at church nor can they speak - no women choir members, children’s SS teachers, children’s sermons, chatter when making food, prayers, talk about who needs help, nursery comforting, etc. Nothing talks about being a senior pastor, yet that what the SBC has made of this verse. If this much leeway/selected application is left for “interpretation", one could make the bible say just about anything.

1 Timothy 2:18-15 New International Version (NIV)

8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Naturally interpreted this applies not only at church but everywhere. So that would mean no women bosses in business, denominational leadership, nurses, school teachers, government, toll booths (anywhere a woman might have some authority); women should only “learn in quietness” perhaps being “saved” (from this plight?) through childbirth.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 New International Version

Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

8 In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11 In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

Could be the best proof text (if you are into such things and you equivalence “overseers” and “senior pastors”). But note vs 11 - could apply only to deacons or to deacons and overseers but it is in context a list of qualifications for something. Remember SBCers don’t allow women deacons either.

And if you want to take all “he” ’s as only being applied only to males, much of the bible applies only to men.

----------- any other basis?------------------

I guess I should congratulate William for being open to a women SBC President.

William said:

There are some women I’d vote for {for SBC President} in a heartbeat. There are some I wouldn’t vote for in a millenium. Same for men.

Now if he becomes open to women pastors/deacons/anything else a man might do, I might be impressed.

Inerrantists have given up their claim on consistent biblical interpretation/application to life as their authority with this weird stance (no women pastors!). Truth is that "traditions of men" (shifting as this has been in both time and locality) is their real authority. I say let the Spirit speak to you and quit judging (or ruling on) how the Spirit might lead others.

KeithE wrote:Natural interpretation is women should not be allowed to make any noise at church nor can they speak - no women choir members, children’s SS teachers, children’s sermons, chatter when making food, prayers, talk about who needs help, nursery comforting, etc. Nothing talks about being a senior pastor, yet that what the SBC has made of this verse. If this much leeway/selected application is left for “interpretation", one could make the bible say just about anything.

I don't think I've ever heard of ANY church (or even cult), no matter how misogynistic and no matter how literal-minded about the Bible text, that actually construes "silent" here as meaning "silent" and as being binding on churches outside ancient Corinth and/or churches under the immediate oversight of Paul of Tarsus.

If you want to apply all of that stuff literally, then men should be lifting their hands in prayer, women should not be braiding their hair or wearing gold jewelry, and in another place, should have a covering over their head and not cut their hair. Worship services should not have a "sermon" (not mentioned anywhere) and try getting a church to abide by Acts 2:42-47, or Acts 5:12-17. When was the last time you opened your invitation to a healing?

Then there's that pesky Greek translation of the term "Guniakas" in I Timothy 3:11. Conservative Evangelicals automatically insist this translates "wives", though the term is generically used for "women" even by the same author elsewhere, along with the term diakonos, and applied to a female in both cases. Other Christians look at the term in I Timothy 3, translate it "likewise, women" and apply it to both Elders and Deacons in context, meaning " in the same way, women who serve [both of these offices of elder and deacon] must meet the same requirements as men do. Since these positions were modeled after Jesus' role as a servant of all, they don't violate the injunction of having authority over a man, because they don't have authority, they have gifts of spiritual leadership.

I don't see any of that applying to a non-Biblical office in a denominational structure that isn't the church.

KeithE wrote:Natural interpretation is women should not be allowed to make any noise at church nor can they speak - no women choir members, children’s SS teachers, children’s sermons, chatter when making food, prayers, talk about who needs help, nursery comforting, etc. Nothing talks about being a senior pastor, yet that what the SBC has made of this verse. If this much leeway/selected application is left for “interpretation", one could make the bible say just about anything.

I don't think I've ever heard of ANY church (or even cult), no matter how misogynistic and no matter how literal-minded about the Bible text, that actually construes "silent" here as meaning "silent" and as being binding on churches outside ancient Corinth and/or churches under the immediate oversight of Paul of Tarsus.

That is probably true. You see no church really always naturally interprets texts (like the clear meaning of “women should be silent in church”). They often depend on received dogma (like there should be no senior pastors in SBC churches) in place of the natural interpretation

Yet they will fight like the devil against those of us (“errantists”) who say the bible is sometimes in error (when they themselves ignore natural interpretations frequently).

To your point about teaching "being binding on churches outside ancient Corinth and/or churches under the immediate oversight of Paul of Tarsus.” If you begin allowing biblical instructions to be applicable only to the original hearers, you undermine the whole counsel of biblical instruction today.

Haruo wrote:But it's mere human polity, whereas the senior pastor bit is (held to be by many) Divine in its origin and authority.

Other than specific Biblical offices like Pastor/Elder, Deacon, Overseer/Bishop all of the polity is of human origin in every denomination. Also, lets be honest, a lot of things we assign pastors to do is extra-Biblical.

Marie Griffith has a great piece about this likelihood up today at the easily googled site Religion and Politics. She starts off with a Molly Worthenesque bang I'm sure Thornton and Sandy will catch out of the gates.

Try and offer a cogent comment Stephen. If you could get in as a messenger to the convention next year (it's in Birmingham) you could nominate one of the CollInsville ladies.

Cute, and just when I was thinking about you on a rare trip down 85 last of May to get back to Collinsville cause I had to get something postmarked by the 31st. Well now Dude you at least got to come to the hotdog stand over from Martin Ga, about 15 miles from the Carolina line if I'm to break bread with you in this lifetime; unless of course don't see you in Bham next year LOL.

Stephen Fox wrote:Marie Griffith has a great piece about this likelihood up today at the easily googled site Religion and Politics. She starts off with a Molly Worthenesque bang I'm sure Thornton and Sandy will catch out of the gates.

Griffith makes a point that authoritarianism started in the early days (1979) of the Takeover/Conservative Resurgence (depending on your viewpoint) with, for instance, the removal of seminary professors even if they just won teaching awards like Molly Marshall, and dissing of feminism/NOW in favor of womanly “submission”. That authoritarianism just grew in time (e.g demanding denomination leaders sign statements pledging their opposition to abortion/homosexuality/women in pastoral leadership, the BF&M2000, and removal of churches from associations for any infringement). In the last 15 years the SBC became openly political with speakers (Republican only) at the Convention.

This sort of authoritarianism was not present in the days prior to 1979 when the “priesthood of the believer”, “separation of church and sate” and the "authority of the local church” were staples of the SBC. For instance (from this article):

When the Supreme Court decriminalized abortion in 1973’s Roe v Wade decision, Southern Baptist leaders appeared to support access to abortion, at least under circumstances with which they could sympathize. Ninety percent of Texas Baptists surveyed in 1969 had affirmed that their state’s abortion laws should be loosened. ...After the 7-2 ruling in Roe was announced, W.A. Criswell, one of the denomination’s most prominent and respected leaders, praised the court’s decision, publicly asserted his view that abortion is not murder, and argued that “what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

No doubt pastors other than Criswell did not agree, but the difference was no big deal - no attempt at coercion.

This has all led to, according to Griffith, the remaining SBSers being susceptible to Trumpian authoritarianism. (I’ll note that this susceptibility is much less in more mainline denominations).

No wonder so many white evangelicals are infatuated with and captivated by the authoritarian occupying the White House. It’s been a long time coming.

Interesting take. I can’t claim any first hand impression myself (having become a southerner in 1979 and a SBC member in 1986), but Griffith and Fox do have such credentials.

Haruo wrote:I don't think I've ever heard of ANY church (or even cult), no matter how misogynistic and no matter how literal-minded about the Bible text, that actually construes "silent" here as meaning "silent" and as being binding on churches outside ancient Corinth and/or churches under the immediate oversight of Paul of Tarsus.

Haruo wrote:I don't think I've ever heard of ANY church (or even cult), no matter how misogynistic and no matter how literal-minded about the Bible text, that actually construes "silent" here as meaning "silent" and as being binding on churches outside ancient Corinth and/or churches under the immediate oversight of Paul of Tarsus.

That's a pretty thorough and interesting perspective. So if you apply these particular passages as literally as this interpretation does, then are all of the other cultural affects that were part of the first century Christian church to be taken and applied literally "in the church"? Actually, if you look at the original language, and the way the term "church" is defined or understood, the phrase "in the church" does not indicate a "church meeting" apart from the community itself. "In the church" meant within the body, since "the church" in many places, including Corinth, included "meetings" taking place in several different locations. So I have a few questions for those Baptists who think this ought to be the way it is. Where are the head coverings? Where are the men lifting their hands during prayer? Do women in your church wear jewelry or cut their hair? Are your pastor's children obedient followers of Christ now? Have they always been? Are there one or two individuals speaking in tongues in your worship time with interpretation? Is the bread at communion truly unleavened, and is their wine in the cup? Is your church taking care of the financial and household needs of widows past sixty or are you letting the government handle that with social security? When did the office of Apostle cease, where is that in scripture?

Let's take the hermeneutical principle that is used here, and apply it, as it should be done if you insist on a literal interpretation of this, to Revelation 1:1-3, and to Luke 21:32 and Mark 13:30, and Matthew 24:34.

Jesus gave just two commands that I can find, "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as youself." Those are timeless and transcend culture. "Women should keep silent in the churches" requires some contextual consideration to interpret.